Despite public support for marijuana legalization being higher than ever before, the Obama Administration under Holder’s leadership has beenworse than any other recent president when it comes to the issue of medical marijuana.

It is a rare and amazing thing to see a member of Congress directly confront the individual technically responsible for carrying out the War on Drugs with the facts about what a failed policy it has proven to be.

Cohen provides one of the best and concise arguments for ending marijuana prohibition heard in Congress. It is worth sharing.

soon?

The Congressional Research Service, which not surprisingly provides research for members of Congress, has put together an extremely comprehensive analysis of possible responses from the federal government and the legal issues surrounding them. It is a long but worthwhile read if you want get into the weeds on the issue.

In summary, while marijuana is legal under state law it is still illegal under the Federal Controlled Substances Act. The federal government could decide to mostly leave the states alone, but if Obama wants to interfere the report looks at the three main tools at his disposal.

1. Federal Prosecution – The federal government can arrest people in these states for violating federal anti-marijuana laws. Going after regular smokers, while theoretically possible, would not be practical because it would require a massive new federal expenditure. The report points out 99% of drug offenses are dealt with under state law.

The federal government could go after the newly authorized commercial businesses to dissuade anyone from taking part. Or as they do with medical marijuana, only go after ones that violate some vague criteria.

2. Forfeiture – The CSA allows for the government to take property involved in drug crimes. Civil forfeiture doesn’t require criminal charges against the owner, just proof the property was involved in criminal activity. From the report: “Forfeiture proceedings are generally less resource intensive than a criminal prosecution and have been used in the past against medical marijuana dispensaries. In practice, the DOJ would be able to seize and liquidate property, both real and personal, associated with marijuana production distribution and retail sale facilities operating in Colorado and Washington without bringing any criminal action.”

This could be used in addition to prosecution or instead of it. If used aggressively this would make it nearly impossible for anyone to run a legal marijuana business in these states.

3. Preempt Lawsuit – The government could file a lawsuit in federal court claiming the new legalization laws are preempted by federal law. This is a tricky legal question and there is no guarantee the federal government would win. The personal possession provision in both laws are almost assured to be found Constitutional under the 10th Amendment. The main issue would likely be if the provisions licensing growers and retailers are preempted.

These possible actions are not mutually exclusive. The Obama administration could decide to use none of them by taking the hands-off approach Americans overwhelmingly would prefer, or they could use all three.

Attorney General Eric Holder claimed the administration would announce a decision on these new state marijuana laws “relatively soon,” but he said that almost two months ago.

Official White House photo by Pete Souza

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT)

It has been four months since voters in Washington State and Colorado overwhelmingly decided to legalize marijuana for adults and there still has been no indication of how the Obama administration plans to handle the federal/state conflict. Whenever US Attorney General Eric Holder is directly asked about it by governors, state attorneys general or senators he only gives evasive non-answers.

During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing this morning, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) again asked Holder if the administration was prepared to announce an official response, but was only told by Holder that a decision would eventually be forthcoming.

Holder responded, “We are in the administration at this point considering what the federal government’s response to those new statutes will be. I expect that we will have an ability to announce what our policy will be relatively soon.”

Leahy was not shy about indicating how he feels the administration should handle this. He told Holder, “If you are going to be, because of budget cuts, prioritizing on matters, I would suggest there are more serious things than minor possession of marijuana. But that’s a personal view.”

Hopefully, President Obama will listen to Leahy and the American people on this issue by deciding to take a hands-off approach to the new laws. The vast majority of Americans think the federal government shouldn’t interfere with the state’s marijuana legalization laws.

It has been almost four months since voters in Colorado and Washington State decided to legalize marijuana for adults and there has still been no indication how the federal government will respond, but it is possible we won’t wait much longer. At the National Association of Attorneys General annual conference, US Attorney General Eric Holder said the Justice Department was reviewing the issue and will make a decision soon.

One of the few question Holder took at the meeting was from Colorado’s AG John Suthers (R) who asked, “when are Colorado and Washington going to hear on the federal governments position on marijuana legalization.”

Holder indicated the federal government is still reviewing the initiatives but the states will hear soon. “We are, I think, in the last states of that review and are trying to make the determination as to what the policy ramifications are going to be, what our international ramifications are,” he said. Holder concluded by saying the people in the states deserve an answer and they will have one “relatively soon.”

The Obama administration has incredibly wide latitude when it comes to dealing with this particular conflict between state and federal law. The administration can choose anything from an aggressive crackdown, selective harassment of only larger business, basically leaving the states alone, or even unilaterally “downscheduling” marijuana under federal law.

Attorney General Eric Holder

It has been over two months since voters in Colorado and Washington State chose to legalize marijuana for adults and there still hasn’t been any real indication how the Obama administration will respond. While US Attorney General Eric Holder continues to remain non-committal about the administration’s plans, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) and state Attorney General Bob Ferguson (D) seem to have developed a mostly positive impression from a recent meeting with Holder. From the Seattle Times:

Inslee and state Attorney General Bob Ferguson met with Holder because of the conflict between federal law, which bans all marijuana, and the state’s law, which makes possession of an ounce of pot legal for those 21 and older.

Inslee said the 45-minute conversation was “very satisfying” and a “confidence-builder” about the state’s ability to move forward implementing legal marijuana. “We went in thinking we should continue with rule-making and nothing I heard should dissuade us,” Inslee said.

At the same time, he stressed that Holder said nothing about the federal government’s intentions and whether it would crack down on Washington state or look the other way.

A non-response it better than a directly negative one but is no guarantee. It is still roughly a year until the first marijuana businesses regulated by the new law are set to open and that gives the administration a long time to decide how they will deal with this federal/state conflict.

So far the only thing anyone has to go on are a few generic statements and vague hints from the administration. While it is a positive development that Inslee seems mostly satisfied with his meeting with Holder, everyone is still trying to read the tea leaves at this point.

Attorney General Eric Holder , still here

The beginning of the second term is normally a period of big changes in a presidential administration and President Obama’s is no exception. He is going to get a new Treasury Secretary, Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense. One notable member of the cabinet that does plan to stay on for at least the near future is Attorney General Eric Holder. This is significant for the marijuana reform movement.

Holder is the individual primarily responsible for dealing with the federal/state conflict regarding marijuana law. He not only provides legal advice to the President, but as the head of the Department of Justice he controls much of the federal law enforcement apparatus including the FBI and DEA. In addition, the Attorney General has the power to reschedule drugs, including marijuana, without Congressional involvement.

Having Holder remain in his current position is probably not great news for the reform movement. He has proven not to be a friend of the movement. In fact, under Holder multiple federal agencies have acted aggressively against state medical marijuana programs trying to undermine them on several fronts. The federal behavior towards medical marijuana has been much worse under Obama than any of the recent presidents.

While the Obama administration seems to be slightly altering its public stance towards marijuana reform following the recent passage of the legalization initiatives in Colorado and Washington, it is normally unusual to see significant course changes at large bureaucracies without a change of leadership.

There is a real possibility that we could see some minor improvements from the Obama administration on this issue, but Holder remaining as Attorney General I suspect makes seeing a big shift in federal policy towards state marijuana laws less likely.

Attorney General Eric Holder was a guest of The Huffington Post at the correspondents’ dinner. Before it began, a HuffPost reporter noted to Holder that Obama’s reference to “congressional law” was misleading because the executive branch could simply remove marijuana from its “schedule one” designation, thereby recognizing its medical use.

“That’s right,” Holder said.

After Kimmel’s speech, a Holder deputy told HuffPost that there was no coordinated war on medical marijuana, but that some individual clinics were breaking both state and federal laws.

In a recent Rolling Stone interview, Obama provided a factually wrong answer that radically distorted the nature of federal law in an attempt to deflect criticism for the federal crackdown on medical marijuana. Obama claimed he “can’t nullify Congressional law” when it comes to medical marijuana, even though the Controlled Substance Act actually gives the Executive branch the authority to “reschedule” (reclassify) marijuana without Congressional action. By simply moving marijuana to a lower schedule the Obama administration could make medical marijuana legal under federal law. Obama would not need to nullify this Congressional law, because Congress already gave him the authority to change marijuana’s legal status.

It is very important that Attorney General Holder himself admits that Obama’s “can’t nullify Congressional law” statement is completely misleading, because the relevant section of the Controlled Substance Act specifically gives him, the Attorney General, the power to implement a process to reschedule cannabis administratively.

Even Obama’s Attorney General admits there is nothing forcing the administration to wage a war on medical marijuana and nothing stopping the administration from making medical marijuana legal under federal law. This is an active choice the administration is making.

Tell AG Holder:
Keep Obama’s Promise,
Respect State Medical Marijuana Laws

Sign our letter telling AG Holder to honor his 2009 memo and respect state medical marijuana laws.

» Read the whole letter

Attorney General Eric Holder is set to “clarify” his department’s stance on state medical marijuana laws in light of an increasing number of raids and threats against patients, caregivers and even state employees.

Shortly after President Obama took office in 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder issued his now infamous “Ogden memo.” In this memo, Holder ordered US Attorneys General to stop federal prosecutions of patients and caregivers in states where medical marijuana has been legalized.

But in recent months, these same US AG’s have unleashed an intense campaign of violence and intimidation on patients and caregivers. It seems as though, despite Holder’s clear directive two years ago, federal prosecutors are either confused about the department’s stance or have gone completely rogue.

The stories won’t stop piling up: the 26 year old Iraq War veteran gunned down by a SWAT team in Arizona during a botched raid in which no illegal evidence was uncovered; 28 raids in under 24 hours across Montana and California, crippling businesses and putting patients’ health and well-being in danger; threats to prosecute state employees for doing their jobs and implementing state law; and on, and on, and on.

These unfortunate events have begun to have a chilling effect on marijuana reform. In Washington, Governor Chris Gregoir has vetoed a bill for medical marijuana dispensaries, and in New Jersey, Governor Chris Christie is refusing to implement his state’s medical marijuana law — all due to the kinds of threats and intimidation coming from US Attorneys General.

But Holder’s silence surrounding these events has raised some alarming questions. Does Holder lack control over his prosecutors? Or is he quietly supporting their militant campaigns from the sidelines?

Hopefully, those questions will be answered as Holder is set to “clarify” his department’s stance on state medical marijuana laws as soon as today. Rep. Barney Frank and Rep. Jared Polis have sent a letter urging the administration to respect state medical marijuana laws and stick to the language and intent of their 2009 memo.

We’re urging AG Holder to respect state law, too, with a petition that demands he honor Obama’s commitment to medical marijuana patients and put an end to federal raids and intimidation.

Click here to read the full letter and add your name.

Stay tuned for more information on AG Holder’s statement, possibly later this afternoon.

In September, PPIC had an outlier poll that found Prop 19 ahead 52-41. Yesterday they released another poll found there had been a 16 point swing, to 44-49. On the other hand, Survey USA found Prop 19 leading 48-41 in September, and holding somewhat steady at 48-44 this week.

Somebody has to be wrong. But SurveyUSA is the only polling firm that is releasing its likely voter models for public scrutiny, so it’s difficult to compare either the PPIC or the LA Times/USC polls in terms of methodology. PPIC released many of its findings, but not its likely voter model.

Several things are worth noting:

1. The polling methodology being used on this issue is more appropriate to partisan office holders rather than ballot measures. On an issue like Prop 19, where age is a much stronger predictor of support than partisan affiliation, the samples being taken among 18-39 year olds is probably small enough to be statistically insignificant. The LA Times poll finds that voters under 40 only favor it by 48% to 37%. That’s inconsistent with the findings of just about every other poll, and considering the fact that they only poll 441 likely voters, the margin of error is going to be enormous.

2. The PPIC polls from September to October are worth comparing on an apples-to-apples basis, however. Support among Latinos has eroded from 63% to 42%. Polling has indicated that support among Hispanic voters increase when they are told that Prop 19 will save money on incarcerations, and the Voto Latino’s California voter guide (PDF) says:

Financial Impact: Estimated savings of up to several tens of millions of dollars annually for state and local governments on the costs of incarcerating and supervising certain marijuana offenders. It is currently unknown but there could potentially be an increased amount of revenue for state and local government related to the production and sale of marijuana products.

It’s unfortunate that nobody has launched a Hispanic radio campaign, because there is virtually no money on the “no” side of the issue. It’s long been apparent that marijuana measures pass largely on the basis of public enthusiasm, however, regardless of the skill level of those running the campaigns.

3. Robert Cruickshank of the Courage Campaign says that anecdotally, he’s hearing that Eric Holder’s bombastic and threatening statement against Prop 19 has had an impact on turning off supporters, but it’s hard to know if that’s showing up in the polls.

4. It’s all going to come down to turnout. Will young voters buck historic midterm trends and show up for Prop 19? As Jon Walker noted, among those who have already sent in their ballots, Prop 19 is narrowly losing. But it leads among those who plan to vote and have not done so. If there was ever a measure in need of a crack turnout operation, this is it. Unfortunately, there never really was one assembled due to lack of resources.

If you want Prop 19 to pass, get to the phones. Calling likely Prop 19 supporters and personally asking them to vote is one of the best ways to get them to the polls, and Just Say Now phone bankers have already put in over 10,000 calls.

You can also donate here to help Just Say Now’s Get Out the Vote effort.

Robert Bonner, courtesy Department of Justice

In September, former DEA Chiefs sent a letter to Eric Holder, informing him that it was the obligation of the Department of Justice to oppose Prop 19 if it passes just as they opposed the Arizona immigration law.

In response, Eric Holder is assuring them that they don’t need to worry, because the Department of Justice will “vigorously enforce” federal drug laws even if Prop 19 passes:

Let me state clearly that the Department of Justice strongly opposes Proposition 19. If passed, this legislation will greatly complicate federal drug enforcement efforts to the detriment of our citizens.

That’s no doubt good news for former DEA Chief Robert Bonner, one of the authors of the original letter to Holder, and who has since worked himself into an anti-pot frenzy about what will happen with the drug cartels and the border situation if Prop 19 passes.

Just Say Now can exclusively report the ties between Bonner’s anti-Prop 19 Reefer Madness and nearly $500,000 in federal contracts to “consult” with the Department of Homeland Security about our ever-growing border war.

For the last month, Bonner’s been making the rounds to speak out against Prop 19.

Sacramento Bee:

“[Bonner] doesn’t believe the measure can weaken Mexican drug cartels as proponents suggest. If anything, Bonner said, the initiative will force the drug networks to diversity – redoubling efforts on cocaine and methamphetamine and perhaps increasing ‘kidnappings and extortion’ in Mexico.”

“It will have very little impact on the overall power of the drug cartels based in Mexico,” Bonner said. “They are criminal organizations and they don’t go away. To the extent you take away their revenues a little bit, they will make it up in other activities.’”

Bonner has been consistently and zealously asserting that the only way to curb drug violence is by pumping a lot of money into the war with the cartels. He writes in the Wall Street Journal that Congress has done its part, and has not poured enough money into things like the Merida Initiative:

Mexico has received a mere 9% of the funds appropriated by Congress. This is just unacceptable. If your neighbor is drowning, he cannot wait forever for the life preserver.

Well, the trouble is, there have been some problems with the money that Homeland Security has been pouring into the war at the border. Specifically, in March of this year Janet Naplitano announced that work would halt on SBInet, the “virtual fence” to be constructed across the US/Mexico border. The Department said that it had been “a grave and expensive disappointment.” They determined that the program needed “better management and oversight,” specifically with regard to the multi-billion dollar contract awarded to Boeing for construction.

Much of the problem had to do with the fact that contractors from Boeing outnumbered the Customs and Border Protection staff, and were often times reviewing their own invoices and seeing if they were reasonable. So rather than hire appropriate staff to supervise the contractors, the U.S. Border Patrol announced it was seeking to hire a contractor for “strategic consulting” to advise them on how to do it:

Even industry publications that typically cater to contractors were skeptical – Government Security News called the request “unusual.” Senior bureaucrats wanted contractors to help with a number of tasks that seemed to make up their own job descriptions.

The contract was written such that only a very narrow group of people with very specific Customs and Border Protection experience would qualify. “All facilitators must be recognized experts in CBP’s business processes, operational environments, stakeholder communities, past and present CBP organization missions and strategies.”

Three days after Bonner and the other DEA Chiefs wrote their letter to Holder on September 13, the $481,000 contract was awarded to a company called Sentinel HS Group, which describes itself as “a strategic consulting firm providing advice and assistance on homeland security matters to the private and public sectors in the United States and abroad,” and specifically served as “principle adviser”… to the team of Boeing Company employees working on SBInet contract.

And who is one of the principles of Sentinal HS Group? Well, that would be one Robert Bonner.

Bonner is also the cochair of the PCIP-COMEXI task force, and recently recommended that there needed to be more investment in …um, his shit:

Robert Bonner, PCIP-COMEXI task force co-chair, emphasized the need to improve border security at and between ports of entry to better facilitate trade and to weaken and defeat organized crime syndicates and drug trafficking organizations (DTOs).

If that’s not quite enough conflict of interest for you, on June 4 2009, Napolitano appointed Bonner to the Homeland Security Advisory Council’s Southwest Border Task Force.

So the bottom line: the Department of Homeland Security is awarding fat contracts to people who serve on its Board of Directors. That’s the kind of stuff that will still raise eyebrows even among corrupt Wall Street oligarchs.

It’s very much in Bonner’s financial interest to keep the war at the border going, but he doesn’t disclose that when he’s out there using his DEA pedigree to whip up the Reefer Madness and oppose Prop 19, or demagogue the Arizona immigration law to shake down the administration.

Bonner is not alone. He’s just one glaring example. The ex-DEA chiefs are all enriching themselves at taxpayer expense through their association with firms profiteering off of the war with the cartels being waged at the border. They’d all be SOL if it were to suddenly stop. It’s no different than the Pentagon Generals story that the New York Times broke in 2008.

How nice of Eric Holder to reassure them that the gravy train will continue.

Paging David Barstow….